Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[delericho]

For a greater update, I think the amount of hostility is proportional to the amount of products one has purchased in the current system. If you only have a handful of 3.5 books, then, sure, why would you care if there's an update? Your financial investment in the system is minor. But if you have, say, hundreds of 3.5 compatible products (especially adventures), you are much less likely to want an update that may affect the usefulness of the products you have.

I may be a statistical outlier, but I have a great deal invested in 3.5 (and 3.0 before it), but would positively welcome a well-done 4e at this time. The sheer weight of the ruleset has become a burden to me, and I would like to see much of the dross cleared out and the best options rolled into the core.

That said, I would only accept a 'new edition' every four years if I was told that this was the plan up front and it was matched by a vastly reduced number of 'significant' supplements between editions. (First on my chopping-block would be the "Complete X" and "Races of" books - these are fine utility books, but don't inspire, and if we're cutting the number of releases then I want only the best of the best to be produced.)

 

[helium3]

So the best thing for tabletop gaming would be to take it off the tabletop?

Yeah sure. There's no reason that the table-top experience (or at least portions of it) can't be ported into some sort of an electronic construct. There are definitely parts of the game that are better handled by machines.

 

[helium3]

I'd like to see a game that you can play either on the tabletop, or on the computer. Ideally, you could move characters back and forth between the tabletop and the digital realm, but that might be impossible. You should certainly be able to use one unified toolset to create adventure content that would work both on the tabletop and in the digital realm.

I'd move the game to a subscription service, with a marketplace for adventure content that 3rd party developers could tap into, and an open development model for the rules of the game and for game components, to maximize the value of everyone who would be interested in participating in that process.

I could see people playing with nothing more complex than some dice and some books, and other people playing a 100% digital game with no real-world component of any kind; and both groups would be playing basically the same game -- as well as several hybridized points along that continuum.

I think that the depth and quality of the rules, the value of the various worlds, and the strength of the community of people who would be interested in developing content would let D&D kick any competitive game system in the nuts, hard.

Get out of my head.

 

[DaveMage]

I may be a statistical outlier, but I have a great deal invested in 3.5 (and 3.0 before it), but would positively welcome a well-done 4e at this time. The sheer weight of the ruleset has become a burden to me, and I would like to see much of the dross cleared out and the best options rolled into the core.

Out of curiosity (if you don't mind answering), how many 3.5 (both WotC and other companies) adventures would you say you had?

 

[JVisgaitis]

Ryan, do you think there is enough life left in d20 for a new company to come in and make an impact (with the PDF business aside)? Do you think a new verison of D&D (in whatever form it may take) could jumpstart the d20 print market again?

 

[RyanD]

Ryan, do you think there is enough life left in d20 for a new company to come in and make an impact

I absolutely believe that.

If someone came up with a concept as compelling in 2007 as Vampire was in 1991, I think it would be successful regardless of what game engine it used.

I think that if someone could come up with a compelling new kind of marketing that reached the millions of people playing D&D and got them to buy something, it would be very successful.

I think that if you could convince enough people that you're a REALLY REALLY GOOD game designer, and that you were publishing a core RPG that was just plain better (in a demonstrable sense that you'd actually experience on the tabletop), you could attempt to cultivate a cult following and build that into a larger business over time.

What I don't believe is that you can publish a generic, Middle-Earth clone fantasy world, a series of splatbooks, and advertise it with a web site/discussion board system, a few banner ads and maybe a page in an issue or two of Dragon Magazine, and expect to generate very much revenue or interest.

Ryan

 

[Piratecat]

Then stop complaining and get yourself appointed to Hasbro's Board of Directors already! Just write them a nice letter explaining what they're doing wrong, and I'm sure they'll be keen to hear all of your ideas.

This is probably meant tongue in cheek, but please be careful about making arguments personal; snarky comments can easily be misinterpreted.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's cool. I'll just buy two each of the eventually released books, to cover for your lack of enthusiasm!

More like my lack of OVER-enthusiasm.

 

[Ranger REG]

You know I'm really surprised at the hostility to the release of an updated rules set every few years. With the SRD, it's perfectly possible to play a 3.5 campaign using your 3.0 rulebooks. Heck, I ran a 3.5 campaign by only updating my Monster Manual, and I haven't ever purchased the 3.5 DMG.

An update of the 3.5 rules to add in the rules that have become defacto parts of 3.5 would be welcomed by me: rules for immediate and swift actions, updates to the polymorph rules, addition of class variant options for the core classes, errata for spells and addition of the new uses for skills...all of those things would cause me to buy a new PHB right now. They also wouldn't invalidate any of the current splat books.

Just sayin' is all.

But would it cause you to buy a new PHB every three years? Sure, it's updated, but you're forking over $30 for a little update from your previous $30 copy.

No, I can't handle buying new updated PHB, DMG, and MM1 every three years. Maybe every 5 to 6 years, but not 3 to 4 years. I'd drop D&D in favor of their other lines, even if that makes me an outcast of the D&D "in" crowd.

 

[kenobi65]

I've heard nothing but bad things about the RPGA...

I'm just curious...exactly what "bad things" do you hear?

I ask because "I've heard nothing but bad things about the RPGA" is a pretty common attitude I see among EN Worlders. Please don't consider me an RPGA apologist (the organization has a lot of warts), but I've enjoyed playing in the RPGA for years. It's obviously not for everyone, but I'm always curious to hear why people hate RPGA so much.